Evans v. Patel
| Decision Date | 04 December 2020 |
| Docket Number | s. 1-20-0528 & 1-20-0592 cons. |
| Citation | 2020 IL App (1st) 200528,186 N.E.3d 961 |
| Parties | Sharon EVANS, Special Administrator of the Estate of Quavia Evans, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Vikas PATEL, M.D., App of Illinois Ed, PLLC, and Waukegan Illinois Hospital Company, LLC d/b/a Vista Medical Center East, Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Laura G. Postilion, of Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A., of Chicago, and Hugh C. Griffin, Jennifer Ries-Buntain, Basile Souferis, and Katie M. Bennett, of Hall Prangle & Schoonveld, LLC, for appellants.
Alex Campos, of Dudley & Lake LLC, of Chicago, for appellee.
¶ 1 Plaintiff Sharon Evans, as special administrator of the estate of decedent Quavia Evans, brought a medical malpractice action in the circuit court of Cook County against defendants Vikas Patel, M.D. (Dr. Patel), APP of Illinois ED, PLLC (APP), and Waukegan Illinois Hospital Company, LLC, d/b/a Vista Medical Center East (Vista) (collectively, defendants). Dr. Patel and APP, joined by codefendant Vista, filed a motion seeking to transfer plaintiff's action to the circuit court of Lake County under the doctrine of forum non conveniens , which the circuit court denied.
¶ 2 On permissive interlocutory appeal pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 306(a)(2) (eff. Oct. 1, 2019), defendants contend that the circuit court abused its discretion when it denied the forum non conveniens motion because the court failed to properly balance the relevant private and public interest factors and gave undue weight to Dr. Patel's residence in Cook County. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
¶ 4 The parties agree to the relevant facts of this case. On July 22, 2017, Quavia, a type 1 diabetic, was transported via ambulance by the Waukegan Fire Department from her residence in Lake County to Vista also located in Lake County. Scott Vandenbroucke and Paul Dawson (both employed in Lake County) were the paramedics who transported Quavia. She was evaluated at Vista by Dr. Patel (a Cook County resident) with Joy Ogden (a Lake County resident) acting as Quavia's nurse. Quavia was diagnosed and treated for diabetic ketoacidosis. Dr. Patel discharged Quavia from the emergency room a few hours later. That day, Quavia was seen by plaintiff and her friend, LaDonna Givens (both Lake County residents). At 2 a.m. the following morning, the Waukegan Fire Department paramedics Vandenbroucke and Dawson were called to Quavia's home. They found her in full arrest and transported her to Vista where she was pronounced dead less than an hour later. An autopsy was performed by Dr. Randall McGivney, who opined that Quavia died from diabetic ketoacidosis. At the time Quavia died, she was survived by two minor children who also resided in Lake County.
¶ 5 Thereafter plaintiff filed a two-count complaint in the circuit court of Cook County against the defendants seeking damages arising out of the death of the decedent on July 23, 2017, as a result of the negligent medical care provided by the defendants on July 22, 2017, in Lake County, Illinois.
¶ 6 The parties engaged in written discovery. Pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 213 (eff. Jan. 1, 2018), plaintiff disclosed as witnesses herself, Givens, Dr. Patel, Ogden, Dr. McGivney, and paramedics Vandenbroucke and Dawson. Defendants collectively disclosed over 90 trial witnesses including Quavia's two minor children, Lawrence Bailey and Andre Sorrels (the fathers of the 2 minor children), Clifford Miller (Quavia's father), and more than 80 medical providers. Of these trial witnesses over 80 either resided or worked in Lake County residents, 6 resided or worked in Cook County, and 6 were connected to other counties or out of state.
¶ 7 Dr. Patel and APP filed a motion to transfer venue pursuant to forum non conveniens seeking to move the cause from Cook County to Lake County. The motion was thereafter joined by codefendant Vista. In the motion, defendants contended that as the complained of medical care occurred in Lake County, plaintiff resides in Lake County, the decedent resided and died in Lake County, and most of the witnesses reside in or near Lake County that Lake County is the more appropriate forum in which to try the case.
¶ 8 Defendants further argued that the litigation had no material connection to Cook County whereby plaintiff, a Lake County resident, was suing for alleged negligence that occurred in Lake County, to a decedent who was a Lake County resident. Accordingly, this matter was a purely local controversy that should be decided locally in Lake County. In addition, defendants observed that Lake County has a less congested court docket than Cook County. Defendants concluded by arguing that by filing her lawsuit in Cook County plaintiff was forum shopping and a balancing of the public and private interest factors weighed in favor of a transfer to Lake County.
¶ 9 In support of their motion, defendants attached a list of approximately 90 witnesses gleaned from the parties' discovery responses. Of these 90 plus witnesses, 80 indicated their addresses (either work or residential) indicated they were located in Lake County. Defendants further indicated, based on the witness's address and utilizing Google Maps, the number of miles to each of the respective courthouses in Cook and Lake County. For those witnesses who resided in Lake County, it was evident that they were closer in proximity to the Lake County courthouse than to the Cook County courthouse (Daley Center). Defendants also attached hotel and parking information which demonstrated Lake County was cheaper for these services than Cook County.
¶ 10 Defendants further included the 2017 Annual Report of Illinois Courts which demonstrated the Cook County docket was more congested than the Lake County docket. Specifically, defendants noted that by the end of that year, there were 136,396 cases pending in Cook County. In contrast, by the end of the year 2017, there were only 39,016 pending cases in Lake County. Defendants argued that in 2017, Cook County had more than three times the number of pending cases than Lake County did. Additionally, Cook County had a 93.1% clearance rate concerning civil lawsuits, while Lake County's clearance rate was much higher for civil lawsuits, at 98.8%.
¶ 11 Defendants submitted two affidavits in support of their motion. In the first affidavit, Dr. Patel averred that he works at Vista in Lake County, at a private practice in Arlington Heights in Cook County, and at Elmhurst Hospital in Du Page County. He further averred that he resides in the northern suburbs of Cook County. According to Dr. Patel, trial in Lake County was preferable due to the commuting time, the possible length of the trial, and his patient and family obligations.
¶ 12 In the second affidavit Ogden, a registered nurse, averred that she resides in Lake County, works from home four days a week, and goes into work in Du Page County one day a week. Ogden attested that she resides 6.3 miles from the Lake County courthouse and 44.2 miles from the Daley Center. She also stated that from her DuPage office it is 20.5 miles to the Daley Center. According to Ogden, it would be "extremely more inconvenient" to attend the trial in Cook County.
¶ 13 In response, plaintiff maintained her choice of venue was proper where Dr. Patel resides and works in Cook County. She further contended that the over 90 witnesses identified by defendants would likely not be called and those who would testify would likely only need to testify on one day. In addition, the documentary evidence and witness testimony could be easily produced in either forum and, in fact, many witnesses would be testifying by way of videotaped evidence depositions. Plaintiff further argued that the witnesses she intended to call signed a declaration stating that litigating the case in Cook County would not be inconvenient. Lastly, plaintiff asserted that defendants failed to meet their burden to demonstrate that the public and private interest factors strongly favor transfer to Lake County.
¶ 14 Plaintiff attached to her response sworn declarations from Givens, Vandenbroucke, Dawson, and Dr. McGivney who each averred that appearing for trial in Cook County would not be inconvenient.
¶ 15 In reply, defendants maintained that their disclosure of 90 witnesses was made in good faith and merited the matter being moved to Lake County for the convenience of these witnesses.
¶ 16 Without holding argument, the circuit court denied defendants' forum non conveniens motion. In the written ruling, the circuit court issued the following findings. In regard to the ease of access to the sources of proof in the case and the convenience to the parties, the court found these factors weighed in favor of Cook County. The circuit court found that "[r]ealistically, the majority of these [90] witnesses will not be called to testify at trial" and a "vast majority" would testify via deposition which would take place in the county convenient to the deponents. And though the court noted that most of the witnesses resided in Lake County, the circuit court stressed that six were residents of Cook County, and six others were either out of state or in a different county.
¶ 17 Regarding Dr. Patel, the circuit court observed the inconvenience he averred to in his affidavit, but found he resides in Cook County and is closer to the Daley Center. The court further noted that regardless of where the trial was conducted, he would have to obtain childcare and coverage for his patients. The court stated that this would be true for Ogden as well.
¶ 18 With regard to documentary evidence, the circuit court found that defendants did not meet their burden to demonstrate that why any medical records or other documentary evidence located in Lake County could not be easily produced...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Inman v. Howe Freightways, Inc.
...witnesses, we generally look at the transportation costs to bring the various witnesses to the potential forums. See Evans v. Patel , 2020 IL App (1st) 200528, ¶ 45, 452 Ill.Dec. 911, 186 N.E.3d 961. Because the majority of the nonparty witnesses live in Iowa, the costs to secure the attend......
- Budget Rent-A-Car Sys., Inc. v. Cleveland
-
Wylie v. Schaefer
...with the circuit court that the plaintiff's choice of forum, although foreign to her, is entitled to some deference. See Evans v. Patel , 2020 IL App (1st) 200528, ¶ 37, 452 Ill.Dec. 911, 186 N.E.3d 961. However, we disagree with the circuit court that the private interest factors do not st......